Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Militarization as comedy of (t)errors
View graph of relations

Militarization as comedy of (t)errors

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Militarization as comedy of (t)errors. / Diken, Bulent.

In: Economia Autonoma, Vol. 4, No. 7, 2011, p. 72-92.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

Diken, B 2011, 'Militarization as comedy of (t)errors', Economia Autonoma, vol. 4, no. 7, pp. 72-92.

APA

Diken, B. (2011). Militarization as comedy of (t)errors. Economia Autonoma, 4(7), 72-92.

Vancouver

Diken B. Militarization as comedy of (t)errors. Economia Autonoma. 2011;4(7):72-92.

Author

Diken, Bulent. / Militarization as comedy of (t)errors. In: Economia Autonoma. 2011 ; Vol. 4, No. 7. pp. 72-92.

Bibtex

@article{f9eaf596251a4f078a92aaecf408263d,
title = "Militarization as comedy of (t)errors",
abstract = "The ultimate catastrophe, emerging from the war against terror, is the disappearance ofpolitics. In a sense, therefore, it is deceptive to speak of a {\textquoteleft}politics{\textquoteright} of security for thedifference between {\textquoteleft}normal{\textquoteright} politics and politics of security is not a quantitative but aqualitative difference. The difference is between politics as such and a politics, whichconsciously rejects the political nature of given questions. The subjectivity relevant toterror and security can no longer be related to the idea of freedom based on individualresponsibility (discipline) or to the instances of security based on risk management through{\textquoteleft}objective systems{\textquoteright} (control). In stark contrast to both situations, terror and politics ofsecurity do not place responsibility in a definite actor or system. The convertibility of thehostage and the infantilization of the citizen bring with them a new constellation ofresponsibility. This paper explores how tendency of discipline turns in control, and the tendency of control in terror. It is in this context that the contemporary politics of securitytransforms the processes of post-panoptic {\textquoteleft}control{\textquoteright} into a form of sociality, a lifestyle. Inthis process, the different dispositive of sovereignty, discipline, control, security/terrorseem to co-exist, overlap and clash, containing within themselves elements of one another.The logic at work here is that of the series: 1, 1+2, 1+2+3. After all, in relation to thebiopolitics (of terror and security), a categorical, Kantian ethics cannot be sufficient. Thecrucial question is no longer the content of an ethical stance but, rather, the decision as towho counts as a subject worthy of ethical concern in the first place.",
keywords = "Terrorism, Disappearance of Politics, Bio-security",
author = "Bulent Diken",
year = "2011",
language = "English",
volume = "4",
pages = "72--92",
journal = "Economia Autonoma",
issn = "1657-5776",
number = "7",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Militarization as comedy of (t)errors

AU - Diken, Bulent

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - The ultimate catastrophe, emerging from the war against terror, is the disappearance ofpolitics. In a sense, therefore, it is deceptive to speak of a ‘politics’ of security for thedifference between ‘normal’ politics and politics of security is not a quantitative but aqualitative difference. The difference is between politics as such and a politics, whichconsciously rejects the political nature of given questions. The subjectivity relevant toterror and security can no longer be related to the idea of freedom based on individualresponsibility (discipline) or to the instances of security based on risk management through‘objective systems’ (control). In stark contrast to both situations, terror and politics ofsecurity do not place responsibility in a definite actor or system. The convertibility of thehostage and the infantilization of the citizen bring with them a new constellation ofresponsibility. This paper explores how tendency of discipline turns in control, and the tendency of control in terror. It is in this context that the contemporary politics of securitytransforms the processes of post-panoptic ‘control’ into a form of sociality, a lifestyle. Inthis process, the different dispositive of sovereignty, discipline, control, security/terrorseem to co-exist, overlap and clash, containing within themselves elements of one another.The logic at work here is that of the series: 1, 1+2, 1+2+3. After all, in relation to thebiopolitics (of terror and security), a categorical, Kantian ethics cannot be sufficient. Thecrucial question is no longer the content of an ethical stance but, rather, the decision as towho counts as a subject worthy of ethical concern in the first place.

AB - The ultimate catastrophe, emerging from the war against terror, is the disappearance ofpolitics. In a sense, therefore, it is deceptive to speak of a ‘politics’ of security for thedifference between ‘normal’ politics and politics of security is not a quantitative but aqualitative difference. The difference is between politics as such and a politics, whichconsciously rejects the political nature of given questions. The subjectivity relevant toterror and security can no longer be related to the idea of freedom based on individualresponsibility (discipline) or to the instances of security based on risk management through‘objective systems’ (control). In stark contrast to both situations, terror and politics ofsecurity do not place responsibility in a definite actor or system. The convertibility of thehostage and the infantilization of the citizen bring with them a new constellation ofresponsibility. This paper explores how tendency of discipline turns in control, and the tendency of control in terror. It is in this context that the contemporary politics of securitytransforms the processes of post-panoptic ‘control’ into a form of sociality, a lifestyle. Inthis process, the different dispositive of sovereignty, discipline, control, security/terrorseem to co-exist, overlap and clash, containing within themselves elements of one another.The logic at work here is that of the series: 1, 1+2, 1+2+3. After all, in relation to thebiopolitics (of terror and security), a categorical, Kantian ethics cannot be sufficient. Thecrucial question is no longer the content of an ethical stance but, rather, the decision as towho counts as a subject worthy of ethical concern in the first place.

KW - Terrorism

KW - Disappearance of Politics

KW - Bio-security

M3 - Journal article

VL - 4

SP - 72

EP - 92

JO - Economia Autonoma

JF - Economia Autonoma

SN - 1657-5776

IS - 7

ER -